Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

i don't know what changed and agree with what you're saying. i said after those rankings were released i thought it'd be osu based on the 'minimal separation' from 5-8 from the committee spokesman, bringing sos/conf champs/etc into play, which osu would be in better position than bama is. and i don't know what changed (more likely they were bs-ing for ratings, imo).
as for the '15 osu vs '17 bama, again the competition to get in the cfp in '15 was much greater than in '17. if '15 osu replaced '17 osu, it's a no brainer and osu is in easily. you can't just compare 15 osu to 17 bama. you have to compare the entire circumstances, which aren't the same 15 osu had much better teams to compete with to get in cfp than the 17 counterparts.

I agree with this entirely.  Part of the nature of things is that you compete in a particular year.  I've always said, for example, that Ohio State and Michigan both had possibly their best ever teams in 1973.  Neither won an NC though because they tied each other.  Ohio State got the Rose Bowl (on a vote of conference AD's) and smoked USC in the Rose Bowl.  They didn't finish #1 because they had a "blemish" in the tie with Michigan.  1973 Ohio State would easily have won the NC in 1972 or 1974 (as would 1973 Michigan) but you don't get to do that.  
2015 Ohio State got left out because the ACC, SEC, B1G, and B12 all produced undefeated or 1-loss Champions.  If Wisconsin had defeated Ohio State this year, Bama would have been left out.  That didn't happen so it left room because there were only three P5 Champions with one or less losses.  

That is exactly what I thought would put Ohio State in.

Up until this year the Committee has been MUCH more interested in who you beat and losses have been a lesser issue.  Bama got in despite lacking quality wins.  They have changed their tune.  

If the Big Ten is serious about the CFP, the path is clear...

1.) Move back to 8 conference games
2.) No more road OOC games
3.) Bring back FCS opponents.

For all the talk, the committee clearly still looks at just how many losses you have.  Alabama doesn't have anything resembling a good win.  Hell, MSU has better wins than Bama does.

My objection to the Bama selection is exactly this.  The message it sends it that scheduling for a strong SoS is a fool's errand because the primary consideration by the committee is:

• Number of Losses.  

Everything else comes after that.  Conference Championships, SoS, and quality wins are tiebreakers to be used when deciding among teams with the same number of losses only.  

Folks criticize Bama's scheduling, but scheduling FSU was a stout move.

I disagree with their neutral site thing and also think they should play 10 P5 teams, but scheduling FSU was not a problem in my mind.  Whether they played Mercer or Ga Southern wouldn't have mattered.  They could have scheduled Duke or UNC and it wouldn't have mattered either, but it would look better.

Folks criticize Bama's scheduling, but scheduling FSU was a stout move.

I disagree with their neutral site thing and also think they should play 10 P5 teams, but scheduling FSU was not a problem in my mind.  Whether they played Mercer or Ga Southern wouldn't have mattered.  They could have scheduled Duke or UNC and it wouldn't have mattered either, but it would look better.

I've said this repeatedly in this thread and I stand by it:
This isn't 4 year old T-ball.  You should not be rewarded for effort.  
I agree that SCHEDULING FSU was a stout move.  However, it did NOT turn out to be a game against a quality opponent.  The same is true for Wisconsin with BYU.  

• Wisconsin scheduled a BYU team that has been decent almost every year recently.  
• Bama scheduled an FSU team that was expected to be a playoff contender.  

Neither Bama nor Wisconsin should be judged based on what they tried to accomplish.  They should be judged based on what actually happened.  What actually happened was that Bama played a mediocre (6-6) FSU team and Wisconsin played a terrible (4-9) BYU team.  

In 2018 Ohio State's OOC is OrSU, TCU, and Tulane.  If TCU sucks, Ohio State should not get "credit" for effort for scheduling a TCU team that has been pretty good.  Also, Ohio State should not get "credit" for the fact that when they scheduled OrSU, the Beavers were pretty good.  

because the primary consideration by the committee is:
Number of Losses.  

It's simple:  1)  Don't lose 2 games.  2)  Don't lose one of them being run off the field.  

I've said this repeatedly in this thread and I stand by it:
This isn't 4 year old T-ball.  You should not be rewarded for effort.  
I agree that SCHEDULING FSU was a stout move.  However, it did NOT turn out to be a game against a quality opponent.  The same is true for Wisconsin with BYU.  

• Wisconsin scheduled a BYU team that has been decent almost every year recently.  
• Bama scheduled an FSU team that was expected to be a playoff contender.  

Neither Bama nor Wisconsin should be judged based on what they tried to accomplish.  They should be judged based on what actually happened.  What actually happened was that Bama played a mediocre (6-6) FSU team and Wisconsin played a terrible (4-9) BYU team.  

In 2018 Ohio State's OOC is OrSU, TCU, and Tulane.  If TCU sucks, Ohio State should not get "credit" for effort for scheduling a TCU team that has been pretty good.  Also, Ohio State should not get "credit" for the fact that when they scheduled OrSU, the Beavers were pretty good.  

that's fine and i don't disagree.
but what it does mean is anyone saying bama is scared or tried to get an edge by not playing anyone tough is full of it. bama went out and scheduled what it thought was a really tough opponent. it didn't turn out that way, but it's not a result of trying to find easy opponents.